ii5^>¥< 






Em 

.F7S 



423 
F75 
:opy 1 



WEBSTER'S SEVENTH OF M.ARCH 

SPEECH AND THE SECESSION 

MOVEMENT^ 1850 



llEkllKRT DaKI.ING FoSTEK 



REPRINTED FROM THE 



VOL. XXVII., No. 2 JANUARY, 1(322 



Reprinted from The American Historical Review, Vol. XX VII, No. 2, Jan., 1922 



WEBSTER'S SEVENTH OF MARCH SPEECH AND THE 
SECESSION MOVEMENT, 1850 

The moral earnestness and literary .skill of Whittier, Lowell, 
Garrison, Phillips, and Parker have fixed in many minds the anti- 
slavery doctrine that Wehster's 7th of March speech was " scandalous 
treachery ", and Webster a man of little or no " moral sense ", cour- 
age, or statesmanship. That bitter atmosphere, reproduced by Par- 
ton and von Hoist, was perpetuated a generation later by Lodge. ^ 

Since 1900, over fifty publications throwing light on Webster and 
the Secession movement of 1850 have appeared, nearly a score con- 
taining fresh contemporary evidence. These twentieth-century his- 
torians — Garrison of Texas, Smith of Williams, Stephenson of 
Charleston and Yale, Van Tyne, Phillips, Fisher in his True Daniel 
Webster, or Ames, Hearon, and Cole in their monographs on South- 
ern conditions — many of them born in one section and educated in 
another, brought into broadening relations with Northern and South- 
ern investigators, trained in the modern historical spirit and freed by 
the mere lapse of time from much of the passion of slavery and civil 
war, have written with less emotion and more knowledge than the 
abolitionists, secessionists, or their disciples who preceded Rhodes. 

Under the auspices of the American Historical Association have 
appeared the correspondence of Calhoun, of Chase, of Toombs, 
Stephens, and Cobb, and of Hunter of Virginia. Van Tyne's Letters 
of IVebsfer (1902), including hundreds hitherto unpublished, was 
further supplemented in the sixteenth volume of the " National Edi- 
tion " of W'ebster's Writings and Speeches (1908). These two edi- 
tions contain, for 1S50 alone, 57 inedited letters. 

Manuscript collections and newspapers, comparatively unknown 
to earlier writers, have been utilized in monographs dealing with the 
situation in 1850 in South Carolina. Mississippi, Georgia, Alabama, 
North Carolina, Louisiana, and Tennessee, published by universities 
or historical societies. 

The cooler and matured judgments of men who knew Webster 
personally — Foote, Stephens, Wilson, Seward, and Whittier, in the 
last century; Hoar, Hale, Fisher, Hosmer, and Wheeler in recent 
years — modify their partizan political judgments of 1850. The new 
printed evidence is confirmed by manuscript material : 2,500 letters 

1 Cf. Parton with Lodge on intellect, morals, indolence, drinking. 7th of 
March speech. Webster's favorite things in England; references, note 63, below. 

(24s) 



246 H. D. Foster 

of the Greenougli Collection available since the publication of the 
recent editions of Webster's letters and apparently unused by Web- 
ster's biographers ; and hundreds of still inedited Webster Papers in 
the New Hampshire Historical Society, and scattered in minor col- 
lections.- This mass of new material makes possible and desirable 
a re-examination of the evidence as to ( i ) the danger from the seces- 
sion movement in 1830; (2) the reasons for Webster's change in 
attitude toward the disunion danger in February, 1850, and for his 
7th of March speech; (3) the effects of his speech and attitude upon 
the secession movement. 

During the session of Congress of 1849-1850, the peace of the 
Union was threatened by problems centring around slavery and the 
territory acquired as a result of the Mexican War: California's de- 
mand for admission with a constitution prohibiting slavery ; the 
Wilmot Proviso excluding slavery from the rest of the Mexican 
acquisitions (Utah and New Mexico) ; the boundary dispute between 
Texas and New Mexico; the abolition of slave trade in the District 
of Columbia; and an effective fugitive slave law to replace that of 

1793- 

The evidence for the steadily growing danger of secession until 
March, 1850, is no longer to be sought in Congressional speeches, but 
rather in the private letters of those men, Northern and Southern, 
who were the shrewdest political advisers of the South, and in the 
official acts of representative bodies of Southerners in local or state 
meetings, state legislatures, and the Nashville Convention. Even 
after the compromise was accepted in the South and the secessionists 
defeated in 1850-1851, the Southern states generally adopted the 
Georgia platform or its equivalent declaring that the Wilmot Proviso 
or the repeal of the fugitive slave law would lead the South to " resist 
even (as a last resort) to a disruption of every tie which binds her 
to the Union ". Southern disunion sentiment was not sporadic or a 
party matter ; it was endemic. 

The disunion sentiment in the North was not gaieral ; but Garri- 
son, publicly proclaiming " I am an abolitionist and therefore for the 
dissolution of the Union ", and his followers who pronounced "the 
Constitution a covenant with death and an agreement with hell ", 
exercised a twofold effect far in excess of their numbers. In the 
North, abolitionists aroused bitter antagonism to slavery ; in the South 
they strengthened the conviction of the lawfulness of slavery and the 

- Manuscripts in tlie Greenoiigh, Hammond, and Clayton Collections (Library 
of Congress) ; Winthrop and Appleton Collections (Mass. Hist. Soc.) ; Garrison 
(Boston Public Library); N. H. Hist. Soc, Dartmouth College; Middletown 
(Conn.) Hist. Soc; and in the possession of Mrs. Alfred E. Wyman. 



ns 1 192? 



U'chsfcr's Serciifli of March Speech 247 

desirabilit}' of secession in preference to abolition. "The abolition 
question must soon divide us ", a South Carolinian wrote his former 
principal in \"ermont. " We are Ijeginning to look upon it [dis- 
union] as a relief from incessant insult. I have been myself sur- 
prised at the unusual prevalence and depth of this feeling." ' "The 
abolition movement ", as Hoviston has pointed out, " prevented any 
considerable abatement of feeling, and added volume to the current 
which was to sweep the State out of the Union in i860." ' South 
Carolina's ex-governor, Hammond, wrote Calhoun in December, 

1849, "the conduct of the abolitionists in congress is daily giving it 
I disunion] powerful aid". "The sooner we can get rid of it [the 
union] the better.""' The conclusion of both Blair of Kentucky and 
Winthrop" of Massachusetts, that " Calhoun and his instruments are 
really solicitous to break up the Union ", was warranted by Calhoun's 
own statement. 

Calhoun, desiring to save the Union if he could, but at all events 
to save the South, and convinced that there was " no time to lose ". 
hoped " a decisive issue will l:)e made with the North ". In February, 

1850, he wrote. "Disunion is the only alternative that is left us"." 
-\t last supported by some sort of action in thirteen Southern states, 
and in nine states by appointment of delegates to his Southern Con- 
vention, he declared in the Senate, March 4, " the South is united 
against the W'ilmot proviso, and has committed itself, by solemn reso- 
lutions, to resist, should it be adopted ". " The South will be forced 
to choose between abolition and secession." " The Southern States 
. . . cannot remain, as things now are, consistently with honor and 
safety, in the I'nion."* 

That Beverley Tucker rightly judged that this speech of Calhoun 
e.xpressed what was " in the mind of every man in the State " is con- 
firmed by the approval of Hammond and other observers ; their judg- 
ment that " everyone was ripe for disunion and no one ready to make 

3 Bcnn-.'tt. Drc. i. )S4.S. lo P,irtridge, Xorwicli Uiiivtrsity. MS. D,irtmoutli. 

■* Houston. Xnllificatioii in South Carolina, p. 141. Further evidence of 
Webster's thesis that abolitionists had developed Southern reaction in Phillips. 
South in the Building of the Nation, IV. 401-403; and unpublished letters approv- 
ing Webster's speech. 

^ Calhoun. Coir.. .Amcr. Hist. .^ssoc. Annual Rcfort ( iSyg, vol. U.). pp. 1193- 
1194- 

'■'To Crittinden, Dec. 20. 1849, Smith, Polit. Hi.^t. Slavery, I. ,22; Winthrop 
MSS.. Jan. 6. 1.^50. 

■Calhoun. Corr.. p. 7S1 : <-/. 764-766, -7.S. 7.S0, 7S3-7.S4. 

»Cong. Globe. XXI. 451-455, 463; Corr.. p. 7.S4. On Calhoun's attitude, 
.■\nies, Calhoun. i>p. 6-7: Slephenson, in Yale Rcvie'V, 191Q, p. 2r6: Xewbiiry. in 
South Atlantic Quarterly, XI. 259; Hanicr, Secession Movement in South Caro- 
lina. tS.IT-i83.\ pp. 49-54. 



248 H. D. Foster 

a speech in favor of the union " ; the testimony of the governor, that 
South Carohna " is ready and anxious for an immediate separation "; 
and the concurrent testimony of even the few " Unionists " like 
Petigru and Lieber, who wrote Webster, " ahnost everyone is for 
southern separation "," disunion is the . . . predominant sentiment ". 
" For arming the state, $350,000 has been put at the disposal of the 
governor." '" Had I convened the legislature two or three weeks 
before the regular meeting," adds the governor. " such was the ex- 
cited state of the public mind at that time. I am convinced South 
Carolina would not now have been a member of the Union. The 
people are very far ahead of their leaders." Ample first-hand evi- 
dence of South Carolina's determination to secede in 1850 may be 
found in the Correspondence of Calhoun, in Claiborne's Quitman, 
in the acts of the assembly, in the newspapers, in the legislature's 
vote " to resist at any and all hazards ", and in the choice of re- 
sistance-men to the Nashville Convention and the state convention. 
This has been so convincingly set forth in Ames's Calhoun and the 
Secession Movement of 18=^0. and in Hamer's Secession Movement 
in South Carolina. iS^^^-iS^^^. that there is need of very few further 
illustrations.-' 

That South Carolina postponed secession for ten years was due to 
the Compromise. Alabama and Virginia adopted resolutions accept- 
ing the Compromise in 1 850-1 851 ; and the Virginia legislature tact- 
fully urged South Carolina to abandon secession. The 1851 elections 
in Alabama, Georgia, and Mississippi showed the South ready to 
accept the Compromise, the crucial test being in Mississippi, where 
the voters followed Webster's supporter, Foote.^" That Petigru was 
right in maintaining that South Carolina merelv abandoned imme- 
diate and separate secession is shown by the almost unanimous vote 
of the South Carolina State Convention of 1852,'^ that the state was 
amply justified " in dissolving at once all political connection with 
her co-States", but refrained from this "manifest right of self- 
government from considerations of expediency only ".^- 

In Mississippi, a preliminary convention, instigated by Calhoun, 
recommended the holding of a Southern convention at Nashville in 

3 Calhoun, Corr.. .\mer. Hist. Assoc, Annual Report (1899, vol. II.), pp. 
1210-1212; Toombs. Corr. (id.. 191 1. vol. II.), pp. iSS, 217; Coleman, Crittenden, 
I. 363; Hamer, pp. 55-56, 46-4S. 54, S2-83 ; Ames. Calhoun, pp. 21-22, 29; Clai- 
borne, Quitman, II. 36—39. 

I" Hearon, Miss, and the Compromise of iSjo, p. 209. 

11 .\ letter to Webster, Oct. 22, 1S51. Greenough MSS.. shows the strength 
of Calhoun's secession ideas. Hamer, p. 125, quotes part. 

12 Hamer, p. 142; Hearon, p. 220. 



Webster's Sciviifli of Marcli Speech 249 

June, 1S50, to "adopt some mode of resistance". The "Resolu- 
tions " declared the Wihnot Proviso " such a !)reach of the federal 
compact as . . . will make it the duty ... of the slave-holdinj,' 
states to treat the nnn-slave-holding states as enemies ". The " Ad- 
dress " recommended " all the assailed states to provide in the last 
resort for their separate welfare by the formation of a compact and 
a L'nion ". "The object of this [Nashville Convention] is to fa- 
miliarize the public mind with the idea of dissolution ". rightly judged 
the Richmond Jl'hig and the Lynchburg Virginian. 

Radical resistance men controlled the legislature and " cordially 
approved " the disunion resolution and address, chose delegates to the 
Nashville Convention, appropriated $20,000 for their expenses and 
$200,000 for " necessary measures for protecting the state ... in 
the event of the passage of the Wilmot Proviso ". etc' ' These ac- 
tions of Mississippi's legislature one day before \\'ebster"s 7th of 
March speech mark approximately the peak of the secession move- 
ment. 

Governor Quitman, in response to public demand, called the legis- 
lature and proposed " to recommend the calling of a regular conven- 
tion . . . with full power to annul the federal compact ". " Having 
no hope of an etYectual remedy . . . but in separation from the 
Northern States, my views of state action will look to secession."'^ 
The legislature supported Quitman's and Jefferson Davis's plans for 
resistance, censured Foote's support of the Compromise, and provided 
for a state convention of delegates.'^ 

Even the Mississippi " Unionists " adopted the six standard points 
generally accepted in the South which would justify resistance. 
"And this is the Union party", was the significant comment of the 
New York Tribune. This Union Convention, however, believed that 
Quitman's message was treasonable and that there was ample evidence 
of a plot to dissolve the Union and form a Southern confederacy. 
Their programme was adopted by the State Convention the following 
year.'" The radical Mississippians reiterated Calhoun's constitu- 
tional guarantees of sectional equality and non-interference with 
slavery, and declared for a Southern convention with power to rec- 
ommend "secession from the Union and the formation of a Southern 
confederacy ".'" 

" The people of Mississippi seemed . . . determined to defend 

13 Mar. 6, 1850. Laus (Miss.), pp. 52i-5;6. 
'■•Claiborne, Quitman, II. 3-; Hearon. p. 161 n. 

15 Hearon, pp. 180-1S1 ; Claiborne, Quilman, II. 51-52. 

16 Nov. 10, 1850, Hearon, pp. 178-180; 1851, pp. 209-212. 
1' Dec. to. Southern Rights Assoc. Hearon. pp. 183-187. 



250 H. D. Foster 

their equality in the Union, or to retire from it by peaceable seces- 
sion. Had the issue been pressed at the moment when the excitement 
was at its highest point, an isolated and very serious movement might 
have occurred, which South Carolina, without douljt, would have 
promptly responded to." '^ 

In (leorgia, evidence as to " which way the wind Ijlows " was 
received by the Congressional trio. .Alexander .Stephens, Toombs, and 
Cobb, from trusted oliservers at home. " The only safety of the 
South from ahnlition universal is to l)e found in an early dissolution 
of the Union." ( )nly one democrat was found justifying Cobb's 
opposition to Calhoun and the Southern Convention.'-' 

Stephens himself, anxious to " stick to the Constitutional Union ", 
reveals in confidential letters to Southern Unionists the rapidly grow- 
ing danger of disunion. " The feeling among the Southern members 
for a dissolution of the Union ... is becoming much more general." 
" Men are now [December, 1849] Ijeginning to talk of it seriously 
who twelve months ago hardly permitted themselves to think of it." 
"Civil war in this country better be prevented if it can be." After 
a month's " farther and broader ^iew ", he concluded, " the crisis is 
not far ahead ... a dismemberment of this Republic I now consider 
inevitable." -° 

(.)n February 8, 1850, the Georgia legislature appropriated $30,000 
for a state convention to consider measures of redress, and gave 
warning that anti-slavery aggressions would " induce us to contem- 
plate the possibility of a dissolution ".-' " I see no prospect of a 
continuance of this Union long ", wrote Stephens two days later. -- 

Speaker Cobb's advisers warned him that " the predominant feel- 
ing of Georgia " was " equality or disunion ", and that " the destruc- 
tives " were tr_\-ing to drive the South into disunion. " But for your 
influence, Georgia would have been more rampant for dissolution 
than South Carolina ever was." " S. Carolina will secede, but we 
can and must put a stop to it in Georgia." -' 

Public opinion in Georgia, which had been " almost ready for 
immediate secession ", was reversed only after the passage of the 
Compromise and by means of a strenuous campaign against the Seces- 

1"^ Clailjonie. Ouilmaii. II. 5J. 

I'-'July I, 1^49. Corr., p. 170 (.\mer. Hist. Assoc. Annual Rcj^ort, 1911. vol. 
II.). 

-'"Johnston, SU't'licns, pp. -■^S-j.io. J44 ; Smith, Politicnl Hi.Uoi-y of Slavery. 
I. 121. 

-^ Lazvs (Ga.), 1850. pp. 122. 405-410. 

-- Johnston, Stephens, p. 24;. 

-a Coi-r., pp. 1S4. 193-195, 206-208. July 21. Newspapers, see Brooks, in 
Miss, l-allcy Hist. Revieu; IX. 289. 



U'cbsfcr's Scrciifh of March Speech 251 

sionists which Stephens. 'I"()t)mhs. ami C'olil) were obUgecl to return 
to (jeort^ia ti) conchicl to a successful issue. -^ Yet even tlie L'nionist 
Convention of (Jeoryia. elected by this campaign, voted almost unani- 
mously " the Georgia platform " already described, of resistance, even 
to disruption, against the W'ilmot Proviso, the repeal of the fugitive 
sla\e law, and the other measures generally selected for reprobation 
in the .South. -■'■ " E\en the existence of the Union depended upon 
the settlement "; " we would ha\e resisted by our arms if the wrong 
[Wilniot i'ro\iso| had been perpetuated", were .Stephens's later 
judgments.-'' It is to be remembered that the Union victory in 
Georgia was based upo)i the Compromise and that Webster's s'aare in 
" strengthening the friends of the I'nion " was recognized by 
.Stei)hens. 

The disunion movement manifested also dangerous strength in 
X'irginia and Alabama, and showed i)0ssibilities of great danger in 
Tennessee. Xorth Carolina. I'lorida, Louisiana, Maryland, Missouri. 
Texas, and Arkansas. The majority of tlie people may not have 
favored secession in 1S50 any more than in i860; but the leaders 
could and did carr}- most of the .Southern legislatures in fa^•or of 
uniting for resistance. 

The "ultras" in \'irginia, under the lead of Tucker, and in Ala- 
bama under Yancey, frankly avowed their desire to stimulate impos- 
sible demands so that disunion would be inevitable. Tucker at Nash- 
ville " ridiculed \Vebster's assertion that the Union could not be dis- 
sohx'd without bloodshed ". ( )n the e\-e of Webster's speech, Garnett 
of \"irginia [jublished a frank advocac)' of a Southern Confederacy, 
repeatedly reprinted, whiih Clay declared "the most dangerous pam- 
phlet he had ever read ".-' X'irginia. in providing for delegates to 
the Xashville Convention, announced her readiness to join her "sister 
slave states" for "mutual defence". She later ac(|uiesced in the 
Compromise, but reasserted that anti-sla\'ery aggressions would " de- 
feat restoration of peaceful sentiments ",-^ 

■-'•1 Phillips, GcorcjHi and Stale R.i/hls. pji. 163-166. 

-■■• .'\nK-s. Docxiiiails. pp'. 2-\-j-j: Hcaron, p, 190. 

-" iS.i4, Auicr. Hist. Rcvini.\ \'\]\. t)Z-i)- ; 1S57, Johnston, Slefhens. pp. .3.' 1- 
.■i2_>; infra, pp. 26-, 268. 

27 Hammoncl MSS.. Jan. 27. Feb. S; Virginia RfSoIvi.s. Feb. i;: Ambler. 
Scclioiialisni in Virginia, p. 246; X. >'. Tribune. Iinu- 14: M. R. 11. Garnett, 
Union Pa^t and Fulnrc, published between Jan. 24 and Mar. 7, .\labama : 
Hodgson. Cradle nf the Confederacy, p. 2S1 ; Dubose. )'anccy. i>p. 247-249. 481 ; 
Fleming, Cifil War and Recnnstniclion in Alabama, p. 13; Cobb. Corr., pp. 103- 
193, 207. President Tyler of ihe College of William and Mary kindly furnished 
evidence of Garnett's authorship; see J. M. Garnett, in Southern Literary Mes- 
senger, XVI. 255. 

=« Resolutions, Feb. 12. iS.so; Acts, 1S50. pp. 223-224: 1S51. p. 201. 



252 H. D. Foster 

In Texas there was acute danger of collision over the New Mexico 
boundary with Federal troops which President Taylor was preparing 
to send. Stephens frankly repeated Quitman's threats of Southern 
armed support of Texas."" Cobb, Henderson of Texas, Duval of 
Kentucky, Anderson of Tennessee, and Goode of Virginia expressed 
similar views as to the " imminent cause of danger to the Union from 
Texas ". The collision was avoided because the more statesmanlike 
attitude of Webster prevailed rather than the " soldier's " policy of 
Taylor. 

The Ijorder states held a critical position in 1850, as they did in 
i860. "If they go for the Southern movement we shall have dis- 
union." " Everything is to depend from this day on the coursf of 
Kentuckv. Tennessee and Missouri." ^^ Webster's conciliatory Union 
policy, in harmony with that of border state leaders, like Bell of 
Tennessee, Benton of Missouri, Clay and Crittenden of Kentucky, 
enabled Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri to stand by the Union" 
and refuse to send delegates to the Nashville Convention. 

The attitude of the Southern states toward disunion may be fol- 
lowed closely in their action as to the Nashville Convention. Nine 
Southern states approved the Convention and appointed delegates 
before June, 1850, six during the critical month preceding Webster's 
speech : Georgia, February 6, 8 ; Texas and Tennessee, February 1 1 ; 
Virginia, Februarv 12; Alabama, just before the adjournment of the 
legislature, February 13; Mississippi, March 5, 6.^^ Every one of 
the nine seceded in 1860-1861 ; the border states (Maryland, Ken- 
tucky, Missouri) which kept out of the Convention in 1850 likewise 
kept out of secession in 1861 ; and only two states which seceded i-n 
i86r failed to join the Southern movement in 1850 (North Carolina 
and Louisiana). This significant parallel between the action of the 
Southern states in 1830 and in i860 suggests the permanent strength 
of the secession movement of 1850. Moreover, the alignment of 
leaders was strikingly the same in 1850 and i860. Those who headed 
the secession movement in 1850 in their respective states were among 
the leaders of secession in i860 and 1861 : Barnwell and Rhett in 
South Carolina ; Yancey in Alabama ; Jefferson Davis and Brown in 
Mississippi ; Garnett, Goode, and Hunter in \'irginia ; Johnston in 
.\rkansas; Clingman in North Carolina. On the other hand, nearly 

2" Stephens. Corr.. p. 102; Globe. XXII. II. 120S. 

3" Boston Daily Advertiser. Feb. 23. 

31 South Carolina, Acts, 1S49. p. 240, and the following Lazes or Acts, all 
1S50: Georgia, pp. 41S, 405-410, 122; Texas, pp. 03-04. 171; Tenne-ise. , p. 
572 (Globe. XXI. I. 417. Cole, Whig Party in the South, p. 161) ; Mississippi, pp. 
526-52S ; Virginia, p. 233; .Alabama. Jl'eekly Tribune, Feb. 23, Daily. Feb. 25. 



JVchsfcr's Sc-c'ciifli of March Speech 2^-^ 

all the men who in 1850 favored the Compromise, in i860 either re- 
mained Union men. like Crittenden, Houston of Texas, Sharkey, 
Lieber, Petigru, and Provost Kennedy of Baltimore, or, like Stephens, 
Morehead, and Foote, vainly tried to restrain secession. 

In the states unrepresented at the Nashville Convention — Mis- 
souri. Kentucky. Mar_\land, North Carolina, and Louisiana — there 
was much sympathy with the .Southern movement. In Louisiana, the 
governor's proposal to send delegates was blocked by the W'liigs.'- 
" Missouri ". in case of the Wilmot Proviso. " will be found in hearty 
co-operation with the slave-holding states for mutual protection 
against . . . Northern fanaticism", her legislature resolved.^' Mis- 
souri's instructions to her senators were denounced as " disunion in 
their object" by her own Senator Benton. The Maryland legislature 
resolved, February 26: " Maryland will take her position with her 
.Southern sister states in the maintenance of the constitution with all 
its compromises." The Whig senate, however, prevented sanction- 
ing of the convention and sending of delegates. Florida's governor 
wrote the governor of .South Carolina that Florida would co-operate 
with Virginia and South Carolina " in any measures in defense of our 
common Constitution and sovereign dignity ". " Florida has resolved 
to resist to the extent of revolution ". declared her representative in 
Congress, March 5. Though the Whigs did not support the move- 
ment, five delegates came from Florida to the Nashville Convention.''^ 

In Kentucky. Crittenden's repeated messages against " disunion " 
and " entangling engagements " reveal the danger seen bv a .Southern 
Union governor. ■■" Crittenden's changing attitude reveals the grow- 
ing peril, and the growing reliance on Webster's and Clav's plans. 
B_v April. Crittenden recogin'zed that " the Union is endangered ", 
" the case . . . rises above ordinar_\- rules ", " circumstances have 
rather changed ". He reluctantly swung from Taylor's plan of deal- 
ing with California alone, to the Clay and Webster idea of settling 
the " whole controversy ". '" Representative Aforehead wrote Crit- 
tenden, " The extreme Southern gentlemen would secretlv deplore 
the settlement of this question. The magnificence of a Southern 
Confederacy ... is a dazzling allurement." Clav, like ^^■el)Ster, 
saw " the alternative, civil war ".^'^ 

2= White, Miss. Valley Hist. Assoc, III. 2t^i. 

^^ .Setuilc Miscellaneotis, i84()— 1S50. no. 24. 

■■i-i HatiKT. p. 40: cf. Cole. ;i7ii<7 I'urly in tlie South, p. i6j: Cong. Globe, 
M.ir. 5. 

2" Coleman. Crittenden, I. 333. 350. 

30 Clayton M.SS., .Apr. 6; cf. Coleman. Crittenden, I. 369. 

■"• Smith, History of Slavery, I. 121 ; Clay, Oct., i8:;i, letter, Curtis. Webster 
II. 5P4-5S.:;. 



254 H. L). Foster 

In North Carolina, the majority appear to have been loyal to the 
Union; hut the extremists — typified by Clingman, the public meeting 
at Wilmington, and the newspapers like the ^^'ilmington Courier — 
reveal tlie presence of a dangerously aggressive Ijody "with a settled 
determination to dissolve the Union" and frankdy "calculating the 
advantages of a Southern Confederacy ". Southern observers in this 
state reported that " the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law or the 
abolition of slavery in the District will dissolve the Union ". The 
North Carolina legislature acquiesced in the Compromise but coun- 
selled retaliation in case of anti-slavery aggressions."^ Before the 
assembling of the Southern convention in June, every one of the 
Southern states, save Kentucky, had given some encouragement to 
the Southern movement, and Kentucky had given warning and pro- 
posed a compromise through Cla_\-."'' 

Nine Southern states — \'irginia. South Carolina, Georgia, Ala- 
bama, Mississippi, Texas, Arkansas. Florida, and Tennessee — sent 
about 176 delegates to the Nashville Convention. The comparatively 
harmless outcome of this convention, in June, led earlier historians 
to underestimate the danger of the resistance movement in February 
and ]\Iarch when backed by legislatures, newspapers, and public opin- 
ion, licfore the effect was felt of the death of Calhoun and Taylor, 
antl of Webster's support of conciliation. Stephens and the .Southern 
Unionists rightly recognized that the Nashville Convention "will be 
the nucleus of another sectional assembly ". " A fixed alienation of 
feeling will be the result." " The game of the destructives is to use 
the Missouri Compromise principle |as demanded by the Nashville 
Convention] as a medium of defeating all adjustments and then to 
. . . infuriate the South and drive her into measures that must end in 
disiniion." " .All who go to the Nashville Convention are ultimately to 
fall into that position." This view is confirmed by Judge Warner 
and other observers in Georgia and. by the unpublished letters ot 
Tucker.'" "Let the Nashville Con\cntion be held", said the Colum- 
bus, (deorgia. Sentinel. " and let the undivided voice of the South go 
forth . . . declaring our determination to resist even to civil war." " 
The speech of Rhett of South Carolina, author of the convention's 
"Address". " frankb- anrl boldly unfurled the flag of disunion". 

■-.^ Cliiisman, .-md WilmiUKlon Kcsolutions. CIoIh'. XXI, I. ;<.o-jo5, ,, , , ; 
National Intelligencer, Feb. 25; Cobb, Corr., pp. 217-218; Boyd, "North Carolina 
on the Evt of Secession", in .-\nuT. Hist. .-Xssoc., Annual Report (1910), pp. 
167-177. 

"■' lleai-ndnn. Naslirilte Convention, p. aS,;. 

I" .Inlinstoi!. Stephens, p. 247: Coir., pp. 1S6. 193. 194, 206-207; Hammond 
MSS.. Jun. 27. Feb. S. 

■" .^nies. Callwiin. p. 26. 



U'chsfcr's Scrcntli of March S/w^cIi 2^^ 

"If every Soiillicrn State should quail . . . Snulh Carolina alone 
.should make the issue." " The opinion of the | Xashvillel address is, 
and 1 l)elieve the opinion of a larye portion of the Southern people 
is. that the I'nion cannot he made to endure ". was deles^ate Rarn- 
well's admission to W'ehster.''- 

Tiie influence of the C'ompromise is hroui^iit out in the striking 
change in the attitude of Senator hViote, and of Judge Sharkey of 
Mississippi, the author of the radical "Address" of the preliminary 
Mississippi Convention, and chairman of holh this and the Nashville 
Convention. .After the Compromise measiu-es were rejiorted in May 
hv Clav and Webster's committee. .Sharkey became convinced that 
the Compromise should he accepted and so ad\'ised l-'oote. Sharkey 
also visited AX'ashington and heljied tci jiacifx- the rising storm by 
"suggestions to individual Congressmen".'' In the Nashville Con- 
vention. Sharkey therefore exercised a moderating influence as chair- 
man and reftised to sign its disunion address. Convinced that the 
Compromise met essential Southern demands, Sharkey urged that 
"to resist it would be to dismember the L'nion ". He therefore re- 
fused to call a second meeting of the Nashville Convention. For 
this change in position he was bitterly criticized by Jefter.son Davis. ^■' 
Foote recognized the "emergency" at the same time that Webster 
did, and on February 25. propo.sed his committee of thirteen to report 
some "scheme of compromise", farting company with Calhoun, 
Mrrch 3. on the thesis tliat the South could not safely remain without 
new "constitutional guarantees", l<"oote regarded \\"ebster"s speech 
as " imanswerahle ", .and in .\\n-\\ came to an_ understanding with him 
as to I-'oote's committee and their common desire for prompt consid- 
eration of California. The im]X)rtance of Foote's influence in turn- 
ing the tide in Mississip])!, through his pugnacious election campaign, 
and the significance of his judgment of the influence of Webster and 
his speech have been somewhat o\-erlooked, partly perhaps because 
of Foote's swashbuckling characteristics."'"' 

That the Southern convention movement jiroved comparatively 
innocuous in June is due in part to confidence inspired by tb.e con- 
ciliatorv policv of one outstanding Northerner. Webster. "Weli- 
ster's speech ", said Winthrop, " has knocked the Nashville Conven- 
tion into a cocked hat."'"' "The Nashville Con\ention has been 

'- Uibstrr, ll'riliiiys and S[-ecclies. X. 161-16.'. 
<3 Cyclopedia Miss. Hijt., art. " Sharkey ". 

<■• Hearon, pp. i.;4. 171-I/.1. Davis 10 Claj'ton (Claylon MSS.). Nov. 22 
1S51. 

■''■Clobe. XXI. I. 41S. i-'4. 712: infra, p. 26?. 

■"i MS.S.. Mar. 10. 

.■\M.HIST. KEV.. vol.. .\XVII. — iS. 



2 56 H. D. Foster 

Ijlovvn by your giant effort to the four winds." ■*' " ?Iad you spoken 
out before this, I verily believe the Nashville Convention had not been 
thought of. Your speech has disarmed and quieted the South." ** 
\\'ebster's speech occasioned hesitation in the South. " This has 
given courage to all who wavered in their resolution or who were 
secretly opposed to the measure [Nashville Convention]."'"' 

Ames cites nearly a score of issues of newspapers in Mississippi, 
South Carolina, Louisiana, North Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia 
reflecting the change in public opinion in March. Even some of the 
radical papers referred to the favorable effect of Webster's speech 
and "spirit" in checking excitement. "The Jackson (Mississippi) 
Southron had at first supported the movement [for a Southern Con- 
vention], but by March it had grown lukewarm and before the Con- 
vention assembled, decidedly opposed it. The last of May it said, 
' not a \\'hig paper in the State approves '." In the latter part of 
]\rarch, not more than a quarter of sixtv papers from ten slave- 
holding states took decided ground for a Southern Convention.^" 
The Ulississippi Free Trader tried to check the growing support of 
the Compromise, by claiming that Webster's speech lacked Northern 
backing. A South Carolina pamphlet cited the Massachusetts oppo- 
sition to Webster as proof of the political strength of abolition." 

The newer, day by day, first-hand evidence, in print and manu- 
script, shows the Union in serious danger, with the culmination 
during the three weeks preceding Webster's speech ; with a modera- 
tion during March ; a growing readiness during the summer to await 
Congressional action ; and slow acquiescence in the Compromise 
measures of September, but with frank assertion on the part of vari- 
ous Southern states of the right and duty of resistance if the com- 
promise measures were violated. Even in December, 1850, Dr. 
Alexander of Princeton found sober Virginians fearful that repeal 
of the Fugitive Slave Act would throw \'irgim'a into the Southern 
movement and that South Carolina " by some rash act " would pre- 
cipitate " the crisis ". " All seem to regard bloodshed as the inevi- 
talile result." ''^- 

To the judgments and legislative acts of Southerners already 
quoted, may be added some of the opinions of men from the North. 

JT.AnsU'll, L'.uihleluni, M.-y ji. Gri-Liiniiyli CullcctiLii. 

■»s Anderson. Tciin., .Xiir. S. ibid. 

!•' Goodc. Hunter Con:, Anur. Hist. Assoc, Ainnial Rcfort (1916, vol. 11.), 
p. Jii. 

^•J Anus. CaHwnii, pp. 24-27. 

^1 Hearoii. pp. 120-12,5; Anonymoiis, Letter on Soiilhcrn ll'roiigs . . . in 
Reply to Grayson (Charleston. 1S50). 

52 Letters. II. iii. 121, 127. 



Jl'cbstcr's Sczriifh of Marcli Speech 257 

Erving, the diplomat, wrote from New York. " The real danger is in 
the fanatics and disunionists of the North "'. " I see no salvation but 
in the total abandonment of the W'ilmot Proviso." Edward Everett, 
on the contrary, felt that " unless some southern men of influence 
have courage enough to take grounds against the extension of slavery 
and in favor of abolition . . . we shall infallibly separate ".''■■ 

A Philadelphia editor who went to Washington to learn the real 
sentiments of the Southern members, reported February i. that if 
the ^^'iImot Proviso were not given up, ample provision made for 
fugitive slaves and avoidance of interference with slavery in the Dis- 
trict of Columbia, the South would secede, though this was not gen- 
erally believed in the North. " The North must decide whether slie 
would have the W'ilmot Proviso without the I'nion or the Union 
without the W'ilmot Proviso." ^* 

In answer to inquiries from the Massachusetts legislature as to 
whether the Southern attitude was " bluster " or " firm Resolve ". 
W'inthrop wrote, " the country has never been in more serious exi- 
gency than at present ". " The South is angry, mad." " The Union 
must be saved . . . by prudence and forbearance." " Most sober 
men here are apprehensive that the end of the Union is nearer than 
they have ever before imagined." " God Preserve the Union is my 
daily prayer ", wrote General Scott. ■'^^ 

Webster, however, as late as February 14. believed that there was 
no "serious danger". February 16. he still felt that "if. on our 
side, we keep cool, things will come to no dangerous pass ".'"' But 
within the next week, three acts in Washington modified Webster's 
optimism: the filibuster of Southern members, February 18; their 
triumph in conference, February 10; their interview with Taylor 
about February 23. 

On Fel)ruary 18. under the leadership of Stephens, the Southern 
representati\es mustered two-thirds of the Southern Whigs and a 
majority from every Southern state save Maryland for a successful 
series of over thirty filibustering votes against the admission of Cali- 
fornia without consideration of the question of slavery in New 
Mexico and Utah. So indisputable was the demonstration of South- 
ern power to block not only the President's plan but all Congressional 
legislation, that the Northern leaders next day in conference with 
Southern representatives agreed that California should be admitted 
with her free constitution, but that in New Mexico and Utah goveni- 

■■•3 Winthrop MSS., Jan. 16, Fib. 7. 

^4 Philadelphia Bulletin, in McMasUr, \'II[. 15. 

-■i VVinthrop MSS., Feb. 10. 6. 

'^''' Writings and Sj'i-cches. X\'I. 533; X\'I1I. 355. 



2 58 //. /). Foster 

mcnt should be organized with no prohibition of slavery and with 
power to form, in respect to slavery, such constitutions as the people 
pleased — agreements practically enacted in the Compromise. °' 

The filibuster of the iSth of February, ^lann described as "a 
re^•olutionar^• proceeding". Its alarming effect on the members of 
the Caljinet was commented upon by the Boston .Idvcrt'iscr, Feb- 
ruar\- i<). The Xew York Tribune, h'ebruary _>o. recognized the 
determination of the South to secede unless the IMissouri Compromise 
line were extended to the Pacific. February 22, the Springfield Rc- 
f^nblictiii declared that " if the Union cannot lie preserved without the 
extension of slavery, we allow the tie of Union to be severed". It 
was on this day. too. that Webster decided "to make a Union speech 
and discharge a clear conscience ". 

That same week (apiiarentlv February 23) occurred the famous 
interview of Stephens and Toombs with Taylor wliich convinced the 
President that the Southern movement " means disunion ". This was 
Taylor's judgment expressed to Weed and Hamlin. " ten minutes 
after the interview ". A week later the President seemed to Horace 
Mann to be talking like a child about his plans to levy an embargo 
and lilockade the .Southern harbors and " save the Union ". Taylor 
was ready to appeal to arms against " these Southern men in Congress 
[who] are trying to firing on ci^il war " in connection with the critical 
Texas boundary ([uestion.'''' 

C)n this _'3d of Februar}-. (^Ireeley, converted from his earlier and 
characteristic optimism, wrote in his leading editorial, " instead of 
scouting or ridiculing as chimerical the idea of a Dissolution of the 
L'nion. we firmly believe that there are si.xtv members of Congress 
who this flay desire it and are plotting to effect it. We have no 
doubt the Nashville Con\'ention will Ije held and that the leading pur- 
pose of its authors is the separation of the slave states . . . with the 
formation of an independent Confederacy." "This plot ... is 
formidable." He warned against "needless pro^'ocation " which 
would " suppl\' weapons to the 1 )isunionists ". A private letter to 
(jreeley from Washington, the same day. says : " H — is alarmed and 
confident that blood will be sjiilt on the floor of the House. ]\Ian\- 
members go to the Flouse armed every day. ^\' — is confident that 

= ' Stephens, U\,r lu-lwccii llu- Slalcs, 11. _'oi-2..5. j;,^ : Cong. Globe, XXI. 
I- ,575-,;S4. 

•"•'* Tluirlow Wttd. Life, II. i;;-i7S, iSo-iSi (Gen. Pleasantoh's confirmatory 
Irtler). Wilson. .Slave Power, II. J4g. Both corroborated by Hamline letter, 
Rhndes. I. 134. Stephens's letters. X. Y. Herald, July 13. .\ug. 8, 1S76, denying 
threatening language used by Taylor " in iny presence "', do not nullify evidence 
of Taylor's attitude. Mann. Life. p. 292. Private Washington letter, Feb. 23. 
reporting inter\ iew. X. V. Tribune, Feb. 25. 



U'chstcr's Sczriillt of Murcli Speech 259 

Disunionism is now iiievitalile. He knows inlimately nearly al! tlie 
Southern inenilicrs. is tniniliar witli tlieir views and sees the letters 
that reaeh them I'mni their constitncnts. lie says the most ultra are 
well hacked up in their advices from home."'"'' 

The same h^ehruary 23, the Boston .Id'i'crtiscr quoted .the Wash- 
ington correspondence of the Jnitnial of Commerce: "excitement 
pervades the whole South, and Southern memhers say that it has gone 
heyond their control, that their tone is moderate in comparison with 
that of their people". "Persons who condemn Mr. t"lay"s resolu- 
tions now trust to some vague idea that Mr. Wehster can do some- 
thing hetter." " If Mr. Webster has any charm by the magic influ- 
ence of which he can control the ultraisui of the North and of the 
South, he cannot too .soon try its effects." " If Kentucky. Tennes.see, 
Missouri go for the .Southern movement, we shall have disunion and 
as much of war as may answer the purposes either of Xorthern or 
Southern fanaticism." On this .Saturday, February 23, also, "sev- 
eral .Southern memhers of Congress had a long and interesting inter- 
view with Mr. Webster ". " The whole subject was discussed and 
the result is. that the limitations of a compromise have been exam- 
ined, which are satisfactory to our .Southern brethren. This is good 
news, and will siu-round Mr. Webster's position with an uncommon 
interest." ''" 

"Webster is the only man in tlie Senate whij has a position which 
would enable him to pre.sent a plan which would l:)e carried ". said 
Pratt of Mar\'land.''^ The Xatlonal IittcIIIgcnccr, which had hitherto 
maintained the safety of the Union, confessed liy February 21 that 
"the integrity of the I'n.ion is at some hazard", quoting .Southern 
evidence of this. <Jn February 25. Foote. in proposing to the Senate 
a committee of thirteen to report some scheme of compromise, gave 
it as his conclusion from consultation with both houses, that unless 
something were done at once, power would ])ass from Congress. 

It was under these highly critical circumstances that Webster, on 
.Sunday. February 24. the day on which he was accustomed to dine 
with his unusually well-informed friends, .Stephens, Toombs. Clav. 
and Hale, wrote to his only surviving .son : 

I am nearly lirokcn down with labor and anxiety. I know not how 
to meet the present emergency, or with what weapons to heat down the 

■■'■> li'cekly Tribmic, M;ir. 2. reprinted from Daily, Feb. ij. Cf. Washington 
Xalional Intelligencer. Feb. 21, (luoting: Richmond linquircr ; Wilmington Com- 
mercial; Cohmibia Telegraph. 

•■■'• N'ew Yor!< Herald. Feb. 25 : Bo-ston Daily Advertiser. Feb. j6. 

"' Tribune. Feb. 25. 



2 6o H. D. Foster 

Northern and Southern foHies, now raging in equal extremes. ... I 
have poor .spirits and little courage. Nan sum qiialis cnnii.''- 

Mr. Lodge's account of thi.s critical I<"ebruary period shows 
ignorance not only of the letter of February 24, but of the real situ- 
ation, li.e mistjuotes von Hoist and from unwarranted assumptions 
draws like conclusions. Before this letter of February 24 and the 
new cumulative evidence of the crisis, there falls to the ground the 
sneer in Mr. Lodge's cjuestion, " if [Webster's] anxiety was solely of 
a public nature, why did it date from March 7 when, prior to that 
time, there was much greater cause for alarm than afterwards ? " 
Webster zvas anxious before the "th of March, as so many others 
were. North and South, and his extreme anxiety appears in the letter 
of February 24, as well as in repeated later utterances. No one can 
read through the letters of Wel)Ster without recognizing that he had 
a genuine anxiety for the safety of the LTnion ; and that neither in 
his letters nor elsewhere is there evidence that in his conscience he 
was " ill at ease " or " his mind not at peace ". Here as elsewhere, 
Mr. Lodge's biography, written nearly forty years ago, reproduces 
anti-slavery bitterness and ignorance of facts (pardonable in 1850) 
and seriouslv misrepresents Webster's character and the situation in 
that year.''^ 

By the last week in February and the first in March, the peak of 
the secession movement was reached. Like others who loved the 
Union, convinced during this critical last week in February of an 
"emergency", Webster determined to make his "LTnion Speech" 
and "push the skiff from the shore alone". " We are in a crisis," 
he wrote again June 2. " if conciliation makes no progress." " It is 
a great emergency that the country is placed in ", he said in the 
Senate, June 17. "We have," he wrote in October, "gone through 
the most important crisis which has occurred since the foundation of 
the government." A year later he added at Btiflfalo, " if we had not 
settled these agitating questions [by the Compromise] ... in m)- 
opinion, there would have been civil war ". In Virginia, where he 
had known the situation even better, he declared, " I believe in my 
conscience that a crisis was at hand, a dangerous, a fearful crisis ".'"'* 

Rhodes's conclusion that there was " little danger of an overt act 
of secession while General Taylor was in the presidential chair " was 
based on evidence then incomplete and is abandoned by more recent 

a-- H'riiiiigs and Sfecchfs. XVI. 534. 

63 Lodge's reproduction of Parton. jip. 16-17, 98, 195, 325-326. 349. 353, 
356, 360. Other errors in Lodge's Webster, pp. 45, 314, 322, 328, 329-330, 352. 

64 I[V//iH,7i ami St^ccihes, XVL 542, 568; X. 116; Curtis, Life, U. 596; 
XIIL 434. 



Webster's Sc:riitlt of March Sf>ccc!i 261 

historians. It is nioi-eover si.^nificant that, of the speeches cited by 
Rhodes, riiHcuHny the danger of secession, not one was dchvered 
before W'eljster's speech. All were uttered after the danger had been 
lessened by the speeches and attitude of Clay and Webster. Even 
such Northern anti-slavery speeches illustrated danger of another 
sort. Hale of Xew Hampshire " would let them go " rather than 
surrender the rights threatened by the fugitive slave bill.'"' Giddings 
in the very speech ridiculing the danger of disunion said, " when they 
see fit to leave the I'nion, I would say to them 'Go in peace'"."'' 
Such utterances played into the hands of secessionists, strengthening 
their convictions that the North despised the South and would not 
fight to keep her in the Union. 

It is now clear that in 1850 as in i860 the average Northern sen- 
ator or anti-slavery minister or poet was ill-informed or careless as 
to the danger of secession, and that Webster and the Southern 
Unionists were well-informed and rightly anxious. Theodore Parker 
illustrated the bitterness that befogs the mind. He concluded that 
there was no danger of dissolution because " the public funds of the 
United States did r.ot go down one mill ". The stock market might, 
of course, change from many causes, but Parker was wrong as to 
the facts. An examination of the daily sales of United States bonds 
in New Yorl:, 1849-1850, shows that tiie change, instead of being 
" not one mill ". as Parker asserted, was four or five dollars during 
this period; and what change there was, was downward before Web- 
ster's speech and upward thereafter.''' 

We now realize what Webster knew and feared in 1849-1850. 
" If this strife between the .South and the North goes on, we shall 
have war, and who is ready for that ? " " There would have been a 
Ci\il War if the Compromise had not passed." The evidence con- 
firms Thurlow \\'eed's mature judgment : " the country had every 
ji^ipearance of being on the eve of a Revolution." ''^ On Februarv 28, 
Everett recognized that " the radicals at the South have made up their 
minds to separate, the catastrophe seems to be inevitable ".''■' 

'3n March 1, \\'el)ster recorded his determination "to make an 
honest truth-telling speech and a Union speech ". The Washington 
correspondent of the .Idz'erliser, March 4, reported that Webster will 

"i"' Mar. ig, Cong. Globe. XXII. II. io6,i. 

'■•"Aug. 12, ibid., p. 1562. 

«' 6'. S. Bonds (1867). .\ljont ii-'-ii.^, Dec, Jan., Feb.. TS5,); "inacli\e" 
before Webster's spcccli ; "firmer", Mar. S; advanced to 117. i lo, May; 11(1-117 
after Compromise. 

f'S E. P. Wheeler, Si.vly Years of American Life. p. 6; cf. Welister's Buf- 
falo Speech, Curtis, Life. II. 576: Weed. Aiilohioyraphy. p. 596. 

09 Winthrop M.S.S. 



262 //. D. Poster 

"take a lar.^e \"ie\v of the state of things and advocate a straight- 
forward course of legislation essentially such as the President has 
recommended ". " To this point public sentiment has been gradually 
converging." " It will tend greatly to confirm opinion in favor of 
this course should it meet with the decided concurrence of Mr. Web- 
ster." The attitude of the plain citizen is expressed by Barker, of 
I'eaver. Penns^dvania. on the same day. "do it. Mr. Webster, as you 
can, do it as a bold and gifted statesman and jiatriot; reconcile the 
Xorth and .South and f^rrscrz'c the ('nioii ". " (Jffer, Mr. Webster, 
a liberal compromise to the South." ( )n March 4 and 3, Calhoun's 
Senate speech reasserted that the .South, ni_i longer safe in the Union, 
possessed the right of peaceable secession. On the 6th of March. 
^Vebster went over the jiroposed speech of the next morning with his 
son Fletcher. Edward Curtis, .and Peter Harvey.'" 

It was imder the cimiulative stress of such convincing evidence, 
public and ])rivate utterances, and acts in Southern legislatures and 
in Congress, that Webster made his Union speech on the 7th of 
March. The purpose and character of the speech are rightlv indi- 
cated by its title, " The Constitution and the Union ", and bv the 
sigiu'ficant dedication to the jieople of Massachusetts: "Necessity 
compels me to speak true rather than pleasing things." " I should 
indeed like to please you; but I prefer to save you. whatever be \our 
attitude toward me."'' The malignant charge that this speech was 
" a bid for the [)residency " was long ago discarded, even Ijv Lodge. 
It uitfortunately sur\ives in text-books more concerned with "'atmos- 
lihere " than with truth. The modern investigator finds no evidence 
for it and e\ery evidence against it. \\'ebster was both too proud 
and too familiar with the political situation. Morth and South, to 
make such a monstrous mistake. The printed or manuscript letters 
to or from Weljster in 1S50 and 1851 show him and his friends 
deeply concerned over the danger to the Union, but not about the 
presidency. There is rarest mention of the matter in letters bv per- 
sonal or political friends; none by Webster, so far as the writer has 
oliserved. 

if one conies to the speech familiar with both the situation in 
1X30 as now known, and with Webster's earlier and later speeches 
and private letters, one finds his position and arguments on the 7th 
of March in harmony with his attitude toward Union and sla\er\-. 

I Conn. I Hist. Soc, adds 
of Pruffssor George M. 

r Speech ", jSi-291 : Win- 



•" WebFter te 


. Harv, 


y. Apr. 


7, MS. Mi.ldleli 


Fletcher's name. 


Recei 


ve.l llin: 


nish the kindm 


Dntcber. 








-1 lVrili„,ix :r 


^l(/ Spi-L 


•clu-s. X. 


57; "Xotes for 


ihrop :MSS., .-\pr. 


3. 







Jl'chsfcr's Sc-rcih'h of March Speech 263 

and with the law and the facts. I'rankly reiterating both his earlier 
view of slavery "as a ijreat moral, political and social evil " and his 
lifelong devotion to the L'nion and its constitutional obligations, Web- 
ster took national, practical, courageous grounds. On the fugitive 
slave bill and the Wilmot Proviso, where cautious Whigs like Win- 
thro]) and ICverett were inclined to keep quiet in view of Northern 
popular feeling, ^\'ebster "took a large view of things" and resolved, 
as Foote saw, to ri.sk his reputation in advocating the onlv practicable 
.solution. Not only was Webster thoroughly familiar with the facts, 
but he was pre-eminently logical and, as Calhoun had admitted, once 
convinced, " he cannot look truth in the face and oppose it by argu- 
ments ".'-' He therefore boldly faced tin* truth that the Wilniot 
Proviso fas it proved later) was needless, and would irritate Southern 
L'nion men and play into hands of disunionists who franklv desired 
to exploit this "insult" to excite secession sentiment. In a like case 
ten years later. " the Republican jiarty took precisely the same groun<l 
held by Mr. \\'ebster in i.'^^o and acted from the motives th;it inspired 
the /th of March speech "." ■ 

Web.ster's anxiety for a conciliatory settlement of the highh- dan- 
gerous Texas boundary situation f which incidentally narrowed sla\-c 
territory) was as consistent with his national Union polics-, as his 
desires for California's admission as a free state and for prohiliilion 
of the slave-trade in the District of Colnmbi;i were in accord with his 
opposition to slavery. Seeing both abolitionists and secessionists 
"threatening the l'nion. he rebuked both severely for disloyalty to 
their "constitutional obligations", while he pleaded for a -more con- 
ciliatory attitude, for faith and charity rather than "heated imagina- 
tions". The only logical alternative to the union polifv was dis- 
union, advocated alike by Ciarrisonian abolitionists and Southern 
secessionists. " The Union . . . was thought to be in danger, .and 
devotion to the Union rightfully inclined men to vield . . . where 
nothing else could have so inclined them", was Lincoln's Itnninous 
defense of the Compromise in his debate with Douglas.'^ 

Webster's support of the constitutional i)ro\ision for "return of 
]jersons held to service " was not merely that of a lawver. It was in 
accord with a deep and statesmanlike conviction that "obedience to 
established government ... is a Christian dnl\- ". the seat of law is 
" the bosom of God. lier voice the harmony of the universe ".'"' C)f- 
fensive as this law was to the North, the only logical alternatives were 

r2l!-ri!ii,gs and Sfcahcs. Will. .!;i 372. 

73 Blaine. Tji'ciity Years of Congress, I. 269-271. 

"•1 U'orhs, II. 202-203. 

7.'. Wrilings anil Steeches, X\'I. 5S0-581. 



264 H. D. Foster 

to fulfil or to annul the Constitution. Webster chose to risk his repu- 
tation ; the extreme abolitionists, to risk the Union. Webster felt, as 
his opponents later recognized, that " the habitual cherishing of the 
principle ", " resistance to unjust laws is obedience to God ", threat- 
ened the Constitution. " He . . . addressed himself, therefore, to 
the duty of calling the American people back from revolutionary 
theories to . . . submission to authority."'" As in 1830 against 
Haynes, so in 1850 against Calhoun and disunion, Webster stood 
not as "a Massachusetts man, but as an American", for "the pres- 
ervation of the Union ".' ' In both speeches he held that he was 
acting not for Massachusetts, but for the "whole country" (1830), 
"the good of the whole" (1850). His devotion to the Union and 
his intellectual balance led him to reject the impatience, bitterness, 
and disunion sentiments of abolitionists and secessionists. " We must 
wait for the slow progress of moral causes ", a doctrine already an- 
nounced in 1840, he reiterated in iS50."'^ 

The earlier accounts of Webster as losing his friends are at vari- 
ance with the facts. Cautious Northerners naturally hesitated to 
support him and face both the popular convictions on fugitive slaves 
and the rasping vituperation that exhausted sacred and profane his- 
tory in the epithets current in that " era of warm journalistic man- 
ners " ; Abolitionists and Free Soilers congratulated one another that 
they had " killed Webster ". In Congress no Northern man save 
Ashmun of Massachusetts supported him in any speech for months. 
On the other hand, Webster did retain the friendship and confidence ' 
of leaders and common men North and South, and the tremendous 
influence of his personality and "unanswerable" arguments eventu- 
ally swung the North for the Compromise. From Boston came 
prompt expressions of " entire concurrence " in his speech by 800 
representative men. including George Ticknor, William H. Prescott, 
Rufus Choate, Josiah Ouincy, President Sparks and Professor Felton 
of Harvard, Professors Woods, Stuart, and Emerson of Andover, 
and other leading professional, literary, and business men. Similar 
addresses were sent to him from about the same number of men in 
New York, from supporters in Newburyport, Medford, Kennebeck 
River, Philadelphia, the Detroit Common Council, Manchester, New 
Hampshire, and " the neighbors " in Salisbury. His old Boston Con- 
gressional district triumphantly elected Eliot, one of Webster's most 
loyal supporters, by a vote of 2,355 against 473 for Charles Sumner. 
The Massachusetts legislature overwhelmingly defeated a proposal to 

'*i Seward, Works. III. 111-116. 

"~ Writings and Speeches, X. 57. 97. 

^^Ibid., XIII. 595; X. 65. 



Il'cbstcr's Sci'cntit of March Speech 265 

instruct Webster to vote for the W'ilniot Proviso. Scores of unpub- 
lished letters in the New Hampshire Historical Society and the 
Library of Congress reveal hearty approval from both parties and all 
sections. Winthrop of Massachusetts, too cautious to endorse \\'eb- 
ster's entire position, wrote to the governor of ^Massachusetts that as 
a result of the speech, " disunion stock is already below par '"."" 
" Vou have performed the responsible duties of a national Senator ", 
wrote General Dearborn. " I thank you because you did not speak 
upon the subject as a Massachusetts man ", said Reverend Thomas 
Worcester of Boston, an overseer of Harvard. " Your speech has 
saved the Union ", was the verdict of Barker of Pennsvlvania, a man 
not of \\'ebster's party. '^^ " The Union threatened . . . ^■ou have 
come to the rescue, and all disinterested lovers of that Union must 
rally round you ", wrote \\'ainwright of New York. In Alabama, 
Reverend J. W. Allen recognized the " comprehensive and self-for- 
getting spirit of patriotism" in Webster, "which, if followed, would 
save the Union, unite the country and prevent the danger in the Nash- 
ville Convention ". Like approval of ^^'ebster's " patriotic stand for 
the preservation of the Union " was sent from Green Count}' and 
Greensboro in Alabama and from Tennessee and \'irginia.^' " The 
preservation of the L'nion is the only safety-valve. C)n \\'ei.)ster de- 
pends the tranquility of the country ", says an anonymous writer from 
Charleston, a native of Massachusetts and former pupil of Webster. "■- 
Poinsett and Francis Lieber, South Carolina Unionists, expressed like 
views. *^ The growing influence of the speech is testified to in letters 
from all sections. Linus Child of Lowell finds it modifving his own 
previous opinions and believes that "shortly if not at this moment, it 
will be approved by a large majority of the people of Massachusetts ".*^ 
" Upon sober second thought, our people will generally coincide with 
your views ", wrote ex-Governor and ex-Mayor Armstrong of 
Boston. ^^ " Every day adds to the number of those who agree with 
you ", is the confirmatory testimony of Dana, trustee of Andover and 
former president of Dartmouth.'"'"' " The effect of your speech begins 
to be felt ", wrote ex-Mayor Eliot of Boston.*' Mavor Huntington 

"^ Mar. io. MS., " Privalf ", to Governor Clifford. 

""Mar. II. .Xpr. 13. Webster papers, X. H. Hist. Soc, cited hereafter as 
" X. H. •. 

*i Mar. II, 25, 22, 17. 26, 2S. Greeiiotigh Collection. 

^-■May .'o. \.H. 

S3 Apr. 19. May 4. XH. 

s* Apr. I. Greenough. 

(■■'• IVritiiigs and Sfcechcs. X\'III. 357. 

6«Apr. 19. X.H. 

8' June 12. X.H. Garrison childishly printed Eliot's name upside down, 
and between black lines. Liberator, Sept. 20. 



2 66 H. D. Foster 

of Salem at first felt the speech to he too Southern ; Ijut " suhsequent 
events at North and South have entirely satisfied me that you were 
I'lLjht . . . and \ast numbers of others here in Massachusetts were 
wrong ". " The change going on in me has been going on all around 
me." " You saw farther ahead than the rest or most of us and had 
the courage and patriotism to stand upon the true ground." ** This 
significant inedited letter is but a specimen of the change of attitude 
manifested in hundreds of letters from " slow and cautious Whigs*'.*" 
< )ne of these, Edward Everett, unable to accept Webster's attitude 
on Texas and the fugitive slave bill, could not " entirely concur " in 
the Boston letter of approval. " I think our friend will be able to 
carry the weight of it at home, but as much as ever." " It would, as 
you justly said,'.' he wrote ^\'inthrop, " have ruined an)- other man." 
This probably gives the position taken at first by a good many mod- 
erate anti-slavery men. Everett's later attitude is likewise typical of 
a change in Xew England. He wrote in 185 1 that W'ebster's speech 
" more than an\- other cause, contriliuted to avert the catastrophe ", 
and was "a practical basis for the adjustment of controversies, which 
had already gone far to dissolve the Union ".''" 

Lsaac Hill, a liitter New Hampshire political opponent, confesses 
that Webster's " kindly answer " to Calhoun was wiser than his own 
might have been. Hill, an experienced political observer, had feared 
in the month preceding WelDSter's speech a " disruption of the Union " 
with ■■ no chance of escaping a conflict of blood ". He felt that the 
censures of Webster were undeserved, that Webster was not merely 
right, but he had " power he can exercise at the North, beyond any 
other man", and that "all that is of value will declare in favor of 
the great princii)les of your late Union speech ".■" " Its tranquilizing 
effect upon public opinion has been wonderful"; "it has almost the. 
unanimous support of this community ", wrote the New York philan- 
thropist M inturn.''-' "The speech made a powerful impression in 
this state. . . . Men feel they can stand on it with security.""''' In 
Cincinnati, Ikdtimore, Philadelphia, New York, and Pittsfield (with 
onls' one exception) the sjieech was found "wise and patriotic"."* 
The sender of a resolution of approval from the grand jury of the 

-?Dec. 1,1, X.H. 

•*'' Writiiiys and Speeches, XVI. 5S2. 

»i Wimhrop MSS., Mar, 21 and Apr. 10, 1850. Nov. 1851; Curtis, Life, II. 
5S0; Everett's Memoir; Webster's Works (1S51), I. clvii. 

^'1 .Xpr. 17. to Webster. Liberator, Dec. 27, 1S50, May 8, 1S56. Curiis, Life. 
II. 429 n. 

■■-- .\vr. 4. X.H. 

■'"Barnard, ,\Ibany, .\iir. lo. X.H. 

"Olar. 15. 28. X.H. 



ll'chstcr's Sciriifh of March Sf^cccli 267 

United States cuiin at Indianapolis says that such judgment is ahnost 
universal.""' " It is thought you may save the country . . . you may 
keep us still united ", wrote Thornton of Memphis, who soberly 
records the feeling of thoughtful men that the Southern purpose of 
disunion was stronger than apjieared in either newspapers or politi- 
cal gatherings. '" " ^'our speech has disarmed — has quieted the 
South;-'' has rendered invalual)le service to the hanuony and union 
of the Sotuh and the North "."^ " I am confident of the higher 
approbation, not of a single section of the Union, hut of all sections ", 
wrote a political ojjponent in Washington.'''' 

The influence of \\'ebster in checking the radical purposes of the 
Xashville Convention has been shown above.'"" 

.\11 classes of men from all sections show a suljstantial and grow- 
ing backing of Webster's 7th of March speech as "the only states- 
manlike and practicable way to save the Union ". " To you, more 
than to any other statesman of modern times, do the people of this 
country owe their national feeling which we trust is to save this Union 
in this its hour of trial ", was the judgment of "the neighbors", the 
plain farmers of Webster's old Xew Hampshire home."" Outside 
of the Abolition and b'ree ^oU i)ress. the growing tendency in news- 
pajiers. like that (jf their readers, was to support Webster's logical 
position. '"'- 

Exaggerated though some of these expressions of approval may 
have been, the\' balance the exaggerated vituperation of Webster in 
the anti-slaver\' press ; and the extremes of approval and disapproval 
both concur in recognizing the widespread effect of the speech, "No 
speech ever deli\erefl in Congress produced ... so beneficial a 
change of opinion. The change of feeling and temperament wrought 
in Congress by this speech is miraculous."'"-' 

The contemporary testimony to Webster's checking of disunion 
is suljstantiated Ijy the conclusions of Petigru of South Carolina. 
Cobb of (leorgia in 1^552, .Mien of Pennsylvania in 1S53, and bv 
Stephens's mature judgment of "the profound sensation upon the 

:'•■■. Iiinc 10. Grei-nouyli. 

'■"'• Mar. 2,S. Greenouyh. 

"' H. I. Anderson, Tenn., .\pr. S. Grcenough. 

•■■' Xil^t n. \\i.. May .'. .\MI, 

''■'Mar. .^. (irLinoiiHli. 

I"" Pp. -'55-^56. 

1"! .^n.i;ust. KS50: i_>; siKncTtnre.s. .\,II. 

1"-Oks, Webster, p. T,-i): Rhodes, I. 157-158. 

'"•■' Xew 'i'orli Joiiniii/ of Comiiicree, Boston Adicrtiscr, Richmond Whig, 
Mar. 12; Baltimore Sun, Mar. iS; Ames, Calhoun, p. 25; Boston Watchman and 
Rcflectpr. in Liheruloy. .\pr. 1. 



268 H. D. Foster 

public mind throughout the Union made by Webster's 7th of March 
speech. The friends of the Union under the Constitution were 
strengthened in their hopes and inspired with renewed energies." ^°* 
In 1874 Foote wrote, "The speech produced beneficial effects every- 
where. His statement of facts was generally looked upon as un- 
answerable; his argumentative conclusions appeared to be inevitable; 
his conciliatory tone . . . softened the sensibilities of all patriots." '°° 
" He seems to have gauged more accurately [than most] the grave 
dangers which threatened the republic and . . . the fearful conse- 
quences which must follow its disruption ", was Henry Wilson's later 
and wiser judgment.'"'" " The general judgment," said Senator 
Hoar in 1S99, "seems to be coming to the conclusion that Webster 
differed from the friends of freedom of his time not in a weaker 
moral sense, but only in a larger, and profounder prophetic vision." 
" He saw what no other man saw. the certainty of civil war. I was 
one of those who . . . judged him severely, but I have learned bet- 
ter." " I think of him now ... as the orator who bound fast with 
indissoluble strength the bonds of union." '"' 

Modern writers. North and South — Garrison, Chadwick, T. C. 
.Smith, Merriam, for instance'".* — now recognize the menace of dis- 
union in 1850 and the service of Webster in defending the Union. 
Rhodes, though condemning Webster's support of the fugitive slave 
bill, recognizes that the speech was one of the few that really altered 
public opinion and won necessary Northern support for the Com- 
promise. " We see now that in the War of the Rebellion his prin- 
ciples were mightier than those of Garrison." " It was not the Lilj- 
erty or Abolitionist party, but the Union party that won." '"■' 

Postponement of secession for ten years gave the North pre- 
ponderance in population, voting power, production, and transporta- 
tion, new party organization, and convictions which made man-power 
and economic resources effective. The Northern lead of four million 
people in 1850 had increased to seven millions by i860. In 1830. 
each section had thirty votes in the Senate; in i860, the North had a 
majority of six, due to the admission of California, Oregon, and 
Minnesota. In the House of Representatives, the North had added 
seven to her majority. The Union states and territories built during 

inilCuc bmceen the Stales. II. 211. 

i"->Civ!l IVar (1866), pp. 1,50-1.11. 

^"'^^ Slave Power, II. 246. 

''■o" Scribner's Magaaine. XW'I. S4. 

i"8 Garrison, IVestivard Expansion, pp. 327-,532 ; Chadwick. Tlie Causes of 
the Civil War, pp. 49-51; Smitli, Parlies and Slavery, p. 9; Merriam, Life of 
Bowles, I. Si. 

I'ln Rhodes, I. 157. 161. 



JJ'cbsfcr's Scz-ciifli of March Spcecli 269 

the decade 15.000 miles of railroad, to 7,000 or 8,000 in the eleven 
seceding states. In shipping", the Xorth in i860 built about 800 
vessels to the seceding states' 200. In i860, in the eleven most im- 
portant industries for war, Chadwick estimates that the Union states 
I)roduced $735,500,000; the seceding states $75,250,000, "a manu- 
facturing productivity eleven times as great for the North as for the 
South"."" In general, during the decade, the census figures for 
i860 show that since 1850 the North had increased its man-power, 
transportation, and economic production from two to fifty times as 
fast as the South, and that in i860 the Union states were from two 
to twelve times as powerful as the seceding states. 

Possibly Southern secessionists and Northern abolitionists had 
some basis for thinking that the North would let the "erring sisters 
depart in peace " in 1850. Within the next ten years, however, there 
came a decisive change. The Xorth, exasperated liy the Kansas- 
Nebraska Act of 1854. the high-handed acts of Southerners in Kan- 
sas in 1856, and the Dred Scott dictum of the Supreme Court in 
1857, felt that these things amounted to a repeal of the Missouri 
Compromise and the opening up of the territory to slavery. In i860 
Northern conviction, backed by an effective, thorough party platform 
on a Union basis, swept the free states. In 1850, it was a "Consti- 
tutional Union " party that accepted the Compromise and arrested 
secession in the South ; and Welister, foreseeing a " remodelling of 
parties", had prophesied that "there must be a Union party"."' 
Webster's spirit and speeches and his strengthening of federal power 
through -Supreme Court cases won by his arguments had helped to 
furnish _the conviction which underlay the Union Party of i860 and 
1864. His consistent opposition to nullification and secession, and 
his appeal to the Union and to the Constitution during twentv years 
preceding the Ci\il War — from his reply to Hayne to his seventh of 
March speech — had developed a spirit capable of making economic 
and political power effective. Men inclined to sneer at Webster for 
his interest in manufacturing, farming, and material prosperity, mav 
well rememljer that in his mind, and more slowly in the minds of the 
North, economic progress went hand in liand with the development 
of union and of liberty secured by law. 

Whether we look to the material progress of the North from 1850 
to i860 or to its development in "imponderables", Webster's policv 
and his power over men's thoughts and deeds were essential factors 
in the ultimate triumph of the Union, which would have been at least 

^U' Preliminary Report, Eighth Census, iS6o; Chadwick, Causes of the Civil 
War, p. 2S. 

Ill Oct. 2, 1S50. Writings and Sf-eeches. XVI. 56S-5O9. 



270 H. D. Foster 

dubious had secession been attempted in 1850. It was a soldier, not 
the modern orator, who said that " \Vehster shotted our guns ". 
A letter to Senator Hoar from another Union soldier savs that he 
kept up his heart as he paced up and down as sentinel in an exposed 
place by repeating over and over. " Liberty and Union now and for- 
ever, one and inseparable"."- Hosmer tells us that he and his boy- 
hood friends of the Xorth in 1861 "did not argue much the c|uestion 
of the right of secession "". but that it was the words of Webster's 
speeches, " as familiar to us as the sentences of the Lord's prayer and 
scarcely less consecrated, . . . with which we sprang to battle ". 
Those boys were not ready in 1850. The decisive human factors in 
the Civil War were the men bred on the profound devotion to the 
LTnion which W^ebster shared with others equally patriotic, but less 
profoundly logical, less able to mould public opinion. Webster not 
only saw the vision himself ; he had the genius to make the plain 
American citizen see that liberty could come through union and not 
through disunion. ^Moreover, there was in Webster and the Com- 
promise of 1850 a spirit of conciliation, and therefore there was on 
the part of the North a belief that they had given the .South a " square 
deal ", and a corresponding indignation at the attempts in the next 
decade to expand slavery by violating the Compromises of 1820 and 
1850. So, liy i860, the decisive border states and Northwest were 
ready to stand behind the Union. Lincoln, born in a border state 
and bred in the Northwest, and on Webster's doctrine, " the L^nion 
is paramount", when he accepted the Republican platform in 1864 
simimed up the issues of the long struggle in W'ebster's words of 
1830, repeated in briefer form in the 7th of March speech, " Liberty 
and Union "."^ 

Herbert D.\rling Foster. 

^i- Scribiicr, XXVI. S4 : Aniericaii Lazi' Rcz'ic-a', XXXV. S04. 
113 Nicolay and Hay, IX. 76, 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



011 898 089 ft ^ 



1 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



011 898 089 A # 



HOLLINGER 
pH 8.5 

MILL RUN F3-1J43 



